What advice would you give someone considering divorce over income?

[NightSG]

7 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I don't want my kids to see hardship. Why would you want someone you love to experience hardship? The realities of life are that they will experience hardships and my job as a parent is to give them a tool kit so that they are prepared to deal with that hardship when it arises because it will.

You can't do that without letting them feel the pain once in a while.  Even some of the pain you could alleviate.  I don't like it, but there are a lot of necessary things in life I don't like.

In my martial arts classes, I learn as much, often more from getting slammed to the mat than from being the one doing the slamming.  Indeed, it is being the one off balance, twisted out of shape and sometimes in pain and/or seeing stars that teaches me to fall properly, recover quickly and get back in the fight.  If I could learn as effectively without that, sure I would.  

Quote

We choose, and sometimes the results of those choices are hardship and suffering and sometimes life just happens, but God does not want that for us. He wants us to not suffer, to not fail, to not endure hardship. His desire is for our happiness, wellbeing, progression, and being the best people we can be.

Remember we're talking about the Miracle Guy here; fixing up four-days-dead Lazarus with less apparent effort than it takes us to make a peanut butter sandwich.  Curing all manner ailments instantly several times.  He can fix anything.  He can prevent any consequence, no matter how severe.  He can increase the abundance of all desirable things such that no one ever goes wanting for anything again.  However, He also knows that we will not learn, understand and progress unless we fail and suffer sometimes.

[Sunday21]

On September 13, 2016 at 3:32 PM, omegaseamaster75 said:

This is why the culture needs to change

I couldn't agree with you more. In my location we are raising our young woman as if we did not believe in an education for woman. Even when they do go to university or college they take noncareer oriented subjects eg forensics - big unemployment associated with that one, childhood education, fine arts. Fine arts has the distinction of being the one major that has a negative effect on income. You will actually make less money after taking a degree in fine arts than if you had no degree at all! Please fewer dance lessons for little Susie. Hire a math tutor instead!

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

I couldn't agree with you more. In my location we are raising our young woman as if we did not believe in an education for woman. Even when they do go to university or college they take noncareer oriented subjects eg forensics - big unemployment associated with that one, childhood education, fine arts. Fine arts has the distinction of being the one major that has a negative effect on income. You will actually make less money after taking a degree in fine arts than if you had no degree at all! Please fewer dance lessons for little Susie. Hire a math tutor instead!

Amen to all of this. I have told my female friends that it they really want to achieve equality (at least in some form) major in engineering, not basket weaving. I say that as someone with an English degree. 

[Anddenex]

This whole conversation has been intriguing and disappointing. Upon reading the whole thread an individual mentioned the Lord who at one point said this, "And Jesus said unto him, Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Source) Was the "Son of man" rich (wealthy) as to the standards of his time? The answer is apparent, no. The only expectation a woman can have of a priesthood holder is that he honors his priesthood. The amount of money he will make is not equivalent to honoring the priesthood and honoring God. I am very fortunate to have married a woman who understands this, and these parents are not my in-laws (I have found one more blessing I can count). The parent's advice to even hint of divorce due to "income level" is pathetic, and shame on them. They wouldn't have even been pleased with the Lord as their son-in-law, who was by no means wealthy or rich, and yet we read people seeking to tie wealth with the priesthood and righteousness. Elder Robert D. Hales have meaning in this thread, "Our world is fraught with feelings of entitlement."

When, my beloved and I were newly weds, we both agreed her education was important. We agreed that she should be a SAHM. To achieve this while going through school and seeking to live within our means (just to support daily living) I worked a full-time job, a part-time graveyard, and was in school taking anywhere from 12 to 17 credits at BYU. This allowed my beloved to be a SAHM and go to school full-time. The first ten years of our marriage I never made above 25K and it wasn't without trying. One time I finally was able to make over 35k/yr. I thought, "Finally, I have the opportunity to make even more money." Six months later the company went under. This thread gives me reason to count a blessing that I have the father and mother-in-law I do; otherwise, the financial struggles we have experienced would have been impacted, multiplied, by irresponsible and sad advice from the in-laws. 

 

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

I worked a full-time job, a part-time graveyard, and was in school taking anywhere from 12 to 17 credits

I remember those days too. I worked in an incoming call center for a high end woman clothing catalog during the day and went to college at night. Exhausting. The worst part was scheduling classes-both the school and my job seemed to take wicked glee in making it as difficult as possible. 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  If I want it annulled.  But, I would hope that my children would go into marriage with the acceptance that this is unconditional love.  Unconditional.  If in their due diligence of finding a spouse they did not realize <insert condition here>... then it becomes their challenge to figure out how to bring that person to Christ with the said condition. 

When Christ gave us the commandment to love, he did not say - love your neighbors unless <insert condition here>.  When he died on the cross, he did not say - I'll atone for your sins unless <insert condition here>.  This is the model of love that I am teaching my children to aspire to.  This is the model of love that Filipino culture teach in their "divorce is illegal" society.  But yes, in the Philippines, there are certain things that is grounds for annulment - shotgun marriage is one of them.

 

Marriage should not be ended for something like income level, but it is not a suicide pact either.  If a spouse cheats or is abusive, you are not obligated to stay married to them.  You can if you choose, but there is nothing immoral about leaving them.  If a person is deliberately tricked or forced into going through a marriage ceremony with somebody then their vows are not valid and their is no marriage, just the outward ceremony.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

6 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I beg to differ.  Apparently, so does the Church. 

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

5 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

but are you magnifying you priesthood and your role as a father by living in poverty? how many more people can you bless if you are more affluent? How much easier will life be for your children if you are able to provide them with things that you never got or experiences that you never had? Are the days past when fathers wanted their kids to do better than they did? Is the new standard mediocrity? Or does God want us to magnify our talents?

If you are doing your best and keeping the commandments you are magnifying your role.  Wealth is no measure of character or righteousness or favor from God.  There are times where God will take everything away from a man to test him. Ask Job about that and those who have gone through similar trials.  God gives different men different levels of ability and different opportunities.  Sometimes God opens the way for a person to be able to bless others, sometimes God's objective is to humble a person and teach them and refine them in his fire.  Joseph Smith was not prosperous except for a short time at the end.  Lehi gave his wealth up and lived in tents for many years till he died.  All that matters is if a person is hostely striving to fulfill  their role or not, not what the actual outcome of his efforts are at some point in time.

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

You can't do that without letting them feel the pain once in a while.  Even some of the pain you could alleviate.  I don't like it, but there are a lot of necessary things in life I don't like.

In my martial arts classes, I learn as much, often more from getting slammed to the mat than from being the one doing the slamming.  Indeed, it is being the one off balance, twisted out of shape and sometimes in pain and/or seeing stars that teaches me to fall properly, recover quickly and get back in the fight.  If I could learn as effectively without that, sure I would.  

Remember we're talking about the Miracle Guy here; fixing up four-days-dead Lazarus with less apparent effort than it takes us to make a peanut butter sandwich.  Curing all manner ailments instantly several times.  He can fix anything.  He can prevent any consequence, no matter how severe.  He can increase the abundance of all desirable things such that no one ever goes wanting for anything again.  However, He also knows that we will not learn, understand and progress unless we fail and suffer sometimes.

Sometimes God deliberately puts us through a trial, not a result of some poor choice on our part but the refiners fire.  Pain and suffering now to grow and find greater joy eternally, and those trials can be financial, medical, relationship or whatever.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

I don't think anyone disputes the need for individual adaptation.  But in underlining the "equal partners" language, what exactly are you suggesting?  That the Church's teachings encouraging mothers to stay home with their children, have been nullified by the Proclamation on the Family? 

Here are some quotations from that Institute manual I linked to earlier, which was published in 2003:

Quote

Sometimes the mother works outside of the home at the encouragement, or even insistence, of her husband. It is he who wants the items or conveniences that the extra income can buy. Not only will the family suffer in such instances, brethren, but your own spiritual growth and progression will be hampered. I say to all of you, the Lord has charged men with the responsibility to provide for their families in such a way that the wife is allowed to fulfill her role as mother in the home.  --Ezra Taft Benson.

Women, when you are married it is the husband’s role to provide, not yours. Do not sacrifice your preparation for an eternally ordained mission for the temporary expediency of money-making skills which you may or may not use”  --Also, Ezra Taft Benson.

No one expends more energy than a devoted mother and wife. In the usual arrangement of things, however, it is the man to whom the Lord has assigned the breadwinner’s role.  --Howard W. Hunter.

Some years ago President Benson delivered a message to the women of the Church. He encouraged them to leave their employment and give their individual time to their children. I sustain the position which he took. . . . It is well-nigh impossible to be a full-time homemaker and a full-time employee. --Gordon B. Hinckley (in 1996, over a year after the issuance of the Proclamation on the Family)

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Latter-Day Marriage]

28 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't think anyone disputes the need for individual adaptation.  But in underlining the "equal partners" language, what exactly are you suggesting?  That the Church's teachings encouraging mothers to stay home with their children, have been nullified by the Proclamation on the Family?

I take it as meaning that one spouse shouldn't say, 'that's totally your job, I'm not helping'.  I see those statements quoted being in the context of a woman going to work outside the home so they can have an inflated lifestyle, or out of the misguided feminist ideology that puts a career above motherhood.  The world today is a place where it is assumed a family has two incomes, and many things are priced on that basis.  In many cases being a stay at home mother is not realistic, at least some of the time, and it raises the question of what choice is better, to limit how many children you have so you can afford to be a stay at home mom, or have more kids and require two incomes as a result.

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

I couldn't agree with you more. In my location we are raising our young woman as if we did not believe in an education for woman. Even when they do go to university or college they take noncareer oriented subjects eg forensics - big unemployment associated with that one, childhood education, fine arts. Fine arts has the distinction of being the one major that has a negative effect on income. You will actually make less money after taking a degree in fine arts than if you had no degree at all! Please fewer dance lessons for little Susie. Hire a math tutor instead!

Completely disagree.  We as a culture are sacrificing one aspect for another. Which is more important to a society? A wife & mother who knows science/engineering or a wife & mother who knows how to properly raise children and provide for the home?

The most important job in the world is raising and teaching the next generation properly. Without that knowledge and training-the world is lost.  That is great if the wife becomes an engineer and develops some fancy iPhone app . . . but in the grand scheme that matters squat if her children are unruly, raised by the TV, etc. The wife has the primary responsibility for raising of children-if she fails it matters not what her education is.

The BoM teaches us the way . . .the stripling warriors were taught by their mothers if they did not doubt God would deliver them.

Yes, you bring up a good point about women marrying some horrible, abusive slacker . . .well the point is to re-marry a good guy not stay single and divorced forever. This is why 100 years ago if the wife died (or divorced) the husband quickly remarried and vice versa. It was simply out of necessity and a realization that each sex had distinct separate but equal roles. One without the other is not whole.

 

[yjacket]

46 minutes ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

The world today is a place where it is assumed a family has two incomes, and many things are priced on that basis. 

The only thing that is really based on two incomes is housing (and that is highly dependent on the geographic area)-it is the biggest expense.  So if one decides having the wife at home is of great importance the biggest sacrifice will be in a smaller house . . .of course considering the smallest houses today are twice what they were 75 years ago means even if one lives in a "lower standard of living" it will still be much better than your grandparents.

[Sunday21]

6 hours ago, yjacket said:

Completely disagree.  We as a culture are sacrificing one aspect for another. Which is more important to a society? A wife & mother who knows science/engineering or a wife & mother who knows how to properly raise children and provide for the home?

The most important job in the world is raising and teaching the next generation properly. Without that knowledge and training-the world is lost.  That is great if the wife becomes an engineer and develops some fancy iPhone app . . . but in the grand scheme that matters squat if her children are unruly, raised by the TV, etc. The wife has the primary responsibility for raising of children-if she fails it matters not what her education is.

The BoM teaches us the way . . .the stripling warriors were taught by their mothers if they did not doubt God would deliver them.

Yes, you bring up a good point about women marrying some horrible, abusive slacker . . .well the point is to re-marry a good guy not stay single and divorced forever. This is why 100 years ago if the wife died (or divorced) the husband quickly remarried and vice versa. It was simply out of necessity and a realization that each sex had distinct separate but equal roles. One without the other is not whole.

 

Due to demographics even in lucky Utah were there are 3 young women to 2 young men, 1/3 of young woman will not marry or will marry out of the church. More women join our church and more men leave. Up here in the great white north, we have about 13 young women to 3 young men. It's like musical chairs. We need to educate our young women to work because there are not enough men to marry.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Sunday21

[Backroads]

I daresay to some extent our society has convinced men their responsibility to provide for the family to some or all extent is of less worth.

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Frankly, @anatess2, at this point I don't know where you're getting the basis for your absolutist anti-marital-dissolution argument.

You now say that it doesn't arise under Filipino law.  Okay, then.

It also quite obviously doesn't arise under American law, which is far more lax than Filipino law.

The approach you're advocating is more far stringent than LDS ecclesiastical law (as outlined in the CHI-1) as well as LDS discourse on the subject (as included in my citation of Elder Faust above and my link to the Church's Eternal Marriage institute manual).

Quite bluntly, you seem to be advancing a Catholic view of marriage on an LDS discussion board.  If that's the perspective you still hold to, that's certainly your choice; but IMHO you should be careful about trying to pass it off as LDS teaching.  Because--quite frankly--it just isn't.

The last time I checked, this was the Advice section of the forum and not LDS Doctrine forum.  If you read back to all my posts in this thread you will see my use of "I" or "for me", etc.  By the way, my chosen principles on the matter does not contradict LDS Doctrine.  There is nothing in LDS Doctrine that says - You MUST leave your spouse if <enter condition> here.  Just because I believe it is clear-cut for me and not for you does not make me less of an LDS than you.  And that's also frankly.

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

11 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

Marriage should not be ended for something like income level, but it is not a suicide pact either.  If a spouse cheats or is abusive, you are not obligated to stay married to them.  You can if you choose, but there is nothing immoral about leaving them.  If a person is deliberately tricked or forced into going through a marriage ceremony with somebody then their vows are not valid and their is no marriage, just the outward ceremony.

Agree on all counts.

I CHOOSE to love my spouse without any conditions.  I choose it everyday.  Of course, if I was forced to marry my husband that wouldn't be my choice and therefore, there is no covenant.  "Tricked into" is an interesting word... If I still freely chose my husband even if he "tricked me" to believe things about him that isn't true, I would still honor my covenant.  My promise is to love him as he is without conditions - being a trickster is part of it.

I see my obligation as a wife to bring my husband closer to Christ.  If he is a cheater, abusive, a trickster, or anything else that makes him far from Christ, it is my mission to help him overcome those failings.  Of course, I can't accomplish that mission if I, myself, don't try to get closer to Christ.

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by anatess2

[NightSG]

9 hours ago, yjacket said:

of course considering the smallest houses today are twice what they were 75 years ago means even if one lives in a "lower standard of living" it will still be much better than your grandparents.

Hey...wait a minute...the house I'm in is 92 years old, and exactly the same size it was 75 years ago.  Did someone forget to water it?

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Hey...wait a minute...the house I'm in is 92 years old, and exactly the same size it was 75 years ago.  Did someone forget to water it?

LOL!  That is funny!

I think yjacket meant as an average... but with the new trend of Tiny Houses these days, I think that trend just might go on its downward cycle in the same way that bell bottoms are going back in style.

[NightSG]

3 hours ago, Backroads said:

I daresay to some extent our society has convinced men their responsibility to provide for the family to some or all extent is of less worth.

Which has, unfortunately, led to the current attitude of financial overcompensation at the expense of actually being around to be a father.  

Even more unfortunately, that leads to a perception of fathers as somewhere between interchangeable and (when the woman has other means of income, or believes that child support and alimony will be enough) inconvenient and unnecessary.

My dad worked 60-80 hours a week most of the time.  Even then I would gladly have traded the annual vacation, other trips with mom, extra toys, etc. for having him get home in time to do more than say good night 5-6 days a week.

Edited September 15, 2016 by NightSG

[NightSG]

Hmm...another danger of chasing material wealth too hard:

http://religionnews.com/2016/07/29/6-unexpected-findings-about-mormon-doubters-and-one-thats-no-surprise/

Quote

7. People who make more than $100,000 a year are more likely to doubt. Unlike the education effect, which turned out to be the opposite of what you might expect, this old chestnut held true: there is a correlation between high income and doubt. As Ben joked, “the Book of Mormon ‘pride cycle’ appears to be confirmed.”

 

[Latter-Day Marriage]

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

Hey...wait a minute...the house I'm in is 92 years old, and exactly the same size it was 75 years ago.  Did someone forget to water it?

I'm pretty sure mine has gotten smaller over the past decade.

[omegaseamaster75]

15 hours ago, Latter-Day Marriage said:

 The world today is a place where it is assumed a family has two incomes, and many things are priced on that basis.  In many cases being a stay at home mother is not realistic, at least some of the time, and it raises the question of what choice is better, to limit how many children you have so you can afford to be a stay at home mom, or have more kids and require two incomes as a result.

Wrong, your just wrong. I live in one of the most expensive parts of the US and my wife is a SAHM. Could she work sure she is educated and when we had no kids she did work, life was great plenty of $$. We made a decision when we had kids  that we would not let a stranger  raise them. What did this mean for me? Back to school and a career change . Working full-time, school full-time, working 2 jobs at one time 3 to make ends barely meet, and a position in the ward for me. I did it and am still working very hard so that I can be a better provider.

The world does not assume that 2 incomes are required you assume that.  If it means that you have 2 kids instead of 4 have 2. how could it possibly be better to have 4 kids and then not have either parent there for them?

[NightSG]

Of course, the easy solution is to have a few extra wives so they can take turns staying home.

[unixknight]

On 9/9/2016 at 10:25 PM, zil said:

  You 

This image is high octane nightmare fuel.